So there's a lot of RW chatter about how the CO Springs Club Q shooter was non-binary.....

[pepperbear]

therefore, this doesn't qualify as a hate crime. What they're really saying is it's just like "black on black" crime. It's all in the abstract to them and they don't even realize it. A perfect example of cognitive dissonance. No one ever shoots up a club just because there are white Christian males inside, but you know if that ever occurred and the perp happened to be a black person, they'd cry hate crime in a heartbeat. The more extreme among them think any instance of violence against straight white men is a hate crime, and they spend their time wondering why there's no "white history" or white pride" month. But they don't think they're racist because they work and socialize with people of color every day and they might even be genuinely decent, that is until they feel their race is somehow threatened.

Of course, it doesn't matter that the shooter was most likely a poor self-loathing emotionally abused person. His father sounds like one hell of a tyrant for a porn star. The first thing out of his father's mouth was practically homophobic. He assumes his son is gay without understanding what non-binary even means.

No wonder he pulled that trigger. No one was there to help.

[brewens]

1. Has that been confirmed in any way? If that's still just that his lawyers are filing papers

as non-binary, it's likely bullshit. Non-binary people are small percentage of the population, so he is probably not one. Even rarer would be a non-binary person willing to attack LGBTQ people.

He better have something where he was insisting on non-binary pronouns for anyone to buy it. There has to be at least an email, video or reliable witness.

[hlthe2b]

8. I think some skepticism is necessary as none of the friends/family/colleagues that

the MSM has been able to interview, nor any of his writings thus far confirm this assertion from his DEFENSE lawyer.

It really is immaterial, regardless, to hate as a motive and thus a potential charge.

[RAB910]

9. His lawyer making the non-binary claims may shield his client from hate crime charges

So, I think skepticism is warranted

[Demsrule86]

2. I have known kids who were kicked out of their homes if they were Gay...I have known

kids who were beaten...they didn't get an AR15 and kill people. I have no sympathy for this loser and my opinion is that the non-binary thing is something the defense lawyer cooked up and isn't even true.

[Maraya1969]

3. I wonder what would happen if someone shot up a big Christian megachurch?

So far all I have seen is people in some margins getting killed by mass shooters, (who usually are Christian) and the "Christians" lawmakers do nothing. I just wonder what they would do if it hit their own home.

[JI7]

4. The binary stuff seems like bs they just made up

[milestogo]

5. The shooter seems like he might be an incel, which doesn't qualify as non-binary.

[yankee87]

6. You hit the nail on the head

He is just an incel who hates everything.

[Srkdqltr]

7. So.... that makes it ok that he killed them?

Will he then get off like the Rittenhouse kid?

[Trenzalore]

10. I think he is trolling the court

They had an interview with someone that knows him and he did not identify himself as non-binary before the shooting.

[NickB79]

11. Call his family and friends to the stand and ask them

Let's see how many want to testify under penalty of perjury to his claim.

Subpoena his social media and see as well.

[yardwork]

12. The assumption that the killer is "self-loathing" is offensive and unhelpful.

There is zero evidence that the killer identified as queer, other than his defense attorney's statement. There is plenty of evidence that he had previously threatened to kill people.

Every single time a murderer goes on a rampage and kills LGBTQ people, we gay folk hear the lazy old knee jerk response that the killer must be a self-loathing gay. And that's from our supposed allies.

It's offensive and often wrong.

[FreeState]

14. This - it's offensive and wrong

The same thing happened when the Pulse shooting happened (he was gay, on Grindr etc.). None of that was true in the end.

[yardwork]

20. It happens every single time.

[pepperbear]

16. I said he was self loathing, not gay.

please read the post. I was talking about the fact that the RW, and the mainstream press actually, are saying he's LGBTQ. If you want to pretend this kind of crap won't influence john q public,I'd offer that you're living in a bubble.

And please, don't tell a gay man what's supposed to be hurtful, even if you're LGBTQ yourself. It's like telling a woman what she should think.

Sorry to be blunt, but no, there will be no circular firing squad today.

[yardwork]

19. I have no idea if you're gay or not.

I know that I'm gay, though, and I have the right to say what's offensive to me. I'm also a woman who has the right to choose what I think.

The fact that the right wing instantly labeled the killer as a "self loathing gay" is a good enough reason for the rest of us to correct the record. I'm perplexed as to why we would go along with our enemies' framing of this.

[BlackSkimmer]

24. Thank you. nt

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. I was with you up until the last sentence.

Millions of abused people have gone through life without ever giving a second to pulling out and gun and killing people.

[pepperbear]

17. I don't know what to tell you

I certainly don't wish to get into a discussion about semantics, but I'd offer that almost all of these kinds of situations involve shooters who were abused, neglected, or marginalized. It usually isn't well adjusted people who shoot other people en masse. The

[mopinko]

22. pretty much all who do are, tho.

and it causes countless lesser ills. if we could root out dv and abuse, we'd have a better world in a generation.
y cant solve problems til u name them. and until u find their root. so, it's a useful discussion.

[Iggo]

15. I don't care.

I don’t care if he was. And I don’t listen to Republican chatter if I can help it.

In fact, the only time I’ve heard this theory is in Democratic chatter on a Democratic message board.

And yes, I’m looking right at you.

[pepperbear]

18. again, with all due respect, I think RW chatter affects the voting habits

and social attitudes of john q ignorant public, the independents that can be swayed one way or the other but can't figure out the ideological differences between the two parties. I believe it's dangerous to dismiss their attempts to yell fire in a theater because one doesn't care what they think. As I've said earlier, it runs the risk of living in a bubble.

[Iggo]

23. And I think the people who spread bullshit should be loudly opposed and subsequently shunned.

Shit-stirrers know that winning the argument doesn’t matter. It’s getting people to think that the shooter isnt bad because he’s a god-fearing homophobic gunfucker. It’s that he’s bad because he’s bad because he’s a deviant. If he was a heterosexual god-fearing homophobic gunfucker, this wouldn’t have happened.

You’re not stopping it. You’re spreading it. And I’m done with you.

[yardwork]

28. Exactly.

When we buy into the right-wing framing we are helping them destroy us.

So far I haven't seen one piece of evidence that this killer identified as gay, other than his defense attorney's transparent attempt to help his client avoid federal prison. Even before that, the right wing instantly started up with the "poor damaged diseased self-loathing gay turned on his own people" crap that they always do.

[BlackSkimmer]

25. This.

I never understand why people bring rw crap here. And it’s happening more and more.

[yardwork]

29. It sure is, and we see it.

[FreeState]

32. It's nothing new when it comes to LGBTQI politics here

There has always been an echo chamber here of right wing talking points against us.

[yardwork]

43. Downthread, we're told we're hypocrites and bigots to question the defense assertion.

Oh those gays.

[Voltaire2]

21. its fucking irrelevant

[maxsolomon]

26. He DID change his name at 16 because his Dad was on a recovery show.

POS Dad wasn't actually around most of their life.

[MichMan]

27. I believe they have called it a hate crime

In terms of the legal system, what effect does that have on the sentence. Assuming he is found guilty, how much additional punishment is he eligible to get for the hate crime charge on top of the murder sentence?

[yardwork]

30. Life in federal prison vs. state prison.

There are some states where federal prison would be preferable. I'm guessing that Colorado isn't one of them.

[MichMan]

33. Once it is designated as a hate crime, the state hands over prosecution of the murderers to the DOJ?

[yardwork]

34. Yes, and it could be two separate trials.

[MichMan]

36. So would he serve once sentence after the other, or would they run concurrently?

[yardwork]

37. Depends on the sentencing decisions.

If there were two trials and two separate convictions, that's two verdicts to try to overturn on appeal, too.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. That would only apply

If the hate crime charge is a federal one. If he is charged and found guilty of a hate crime under a state hate crime law, he wouldn’t go to federal prison.

[kelly1mm]

31. But is anyone allowed to question if someone is 'truly' non-binary or transgender? In

my readings I believe that the assertions of the person as to their gender are not to be questioned or debated. If the shooter wants us to use they/them as pronouns, are we allowed to refuse? In certain educational/employment situations wouldn't this be considered harassment and leave us subject to discipline if we misgendered the person?

[yardwork]

35. Good question! I think we are allowed to question it in the case of a crime.

This is different from misgendering a person at work (which is not illegal in most states, anyway).

[kelly1mm]

38. I don't think misgendering someone is illegal in any state. That is different than being subject to

discipline in educational/employment situations. No body is going to get arrested for misgendering someone but one may well get fired.

Due to the nature of this incident and the victims there seems to be an effort by both the right and the left to define the shooter in ways that support their 'teams'. The left questioning this person's assertion (or, technically the attorney's assertion) of gender status just seems against the overwhelming position that it is an individuals determination and not to be questioned.

[yardwork]

41. I'm gay and I've never, ever heard that anybody has to accept a defense attorney's assertion.

This framing seems to be an effort at making "both sides" look equally wrong.

No sale.

[kelly1mm]

44. Lets take the defense attorney out of it. Lets assume the shooter states that they are non-binary

or transgender. Do we have to accept that? In the reading I have done and being here on DU for years it is my understanding that ones declaration of gender identity is not to be questioned.

Is that your understanding of the general progressive position?
Is that your position?

I am unclear as to my own position especially since it seems like this could be a defense against hate crime charges and or just trolling

[yardwork]

47. I reject the "progressive position" framing. Context matters.

I fully expect this murderer to claim all kinds of things, none of which I'll take at face value.

The killer was captured in the act of cold-bloodedly murdering a group of people. He deserves his constitutional rights. If the Court chooses to honor his request for specific pronouns, that's fine. But it won't influence my opinion about him. He's not special in some way just because he may claim to be.

We're not helpless in the face of trolling. Far from it.

[kelly1mm]

56. If I am reading your comment correctly you are not necessarily disputing the shooters

declaration of gender identity but that it does not matter for the criminal case and or for your opinion of the shooter. If so I fully agree! The shooter is a crap bag not withstanding their gender identity.

I just find it odd/interesting that this is the first time I can recall anyone here on DU challenging someones declaration of gender identity. My understanding (although I cannot speak for everyone) is that the individuals declaration was definitive. And yet here in this thread we have someone saying that the shooter is not non-binary because they don't look non-binary (they have a beard).

And I am like you in that I don't think it should matter so I am wondering why some are trying to deny the shooters stated gender identity?

[yardwork]

59. The individual's declaration was definitive?

I missed that. Could you link to the source? I'm aware of what his attorney has said, but as I said above, that is in no way definitive.

[kelly1mm]

61. If someone (not this shooter in particular) says they are non-binary what basis does

anyone have to say no they are not? If someone states they are non-binary is it appropriate for their parents to dispute that? What about their employer? What about to random person on the street how says you cannot be non-binary if you have a beard (as is being argued in this thread)?

Who else but an individual gets to decide that individuals gender identity?

Is this not the generally accepted position among us progressives?

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. I'd like to point out that I have not said "the shooter is not non-binary"

I have expressed doubt they they are - because the declaration came from an attorney, with the client facing hate crime charges, and there has been, as far as I can tell, no mention of this before the murders (eg the bigot father has not mentioned it, but instead spouts that he's glad his son is not gay). So I said the attorney needs to provide some evidence. The murderer's choice to wear a beard was a choice to appear binary.

You keep talking about "the shooter's stated gender identity", but that's not the case - the attorney claimed it.

[kelly1mm]

65. So once the shooter does state it that will end the question for you, assuming they do?

If the basis for your belief is just that you have not heard it from the shooter directly then I apologize for my ungenerous characterizations of your comments.

I just find it hard to believe that one can think they have the ability to question someones stated gender identity due to not looking non-binary by having a beard.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. If they'd stated it *before* the murder, I'd accept it

If it's brand-new for the time when they're facing charges, then I'm not going to accept it as "definitive"'.

[kelly1mm]

67. Even with a beard? If so then what does the shooter not 'looking' non-binary by

having a beard, in your opinion, have to do with anything? Why did you even bring that up? IF you had just claimed that the timing of the declaration of gender identity was the sole/primary reason for your questioning then I certainly would not have been pushing back as much.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Because it was a decision to go for a binary look, from before the murders

and without any evidence so far of them saying they were non-binary before the murders, it looks relevant.

[kelly1mm]

73. I don't think that any outward physical characteristics or 'looks' should have any

weight in disputing an individuals stated gender identity. Period.

[meadowlander]

76. As discussed below, I don't think you understand what non-binary means.

[meadowlander]

75. Surprisingly some non-binary people don't feel safe saying it in a country where trans people are

harassed just because they want to use the bathroom.

Nobody is obligated to prove to you or anyone else what their gender identity is. In some cases, where a person has not felt safe to transition or for whatever other reason has chosen not to, there won't be any evidence.

And you don't get to say "definitively" what someone else's gender identity is anymore than you get to decide if there is enough evidence that their name is their actual name or not.

[meadowlander]

58. Is anyone allowed to question if someone 'truly' hates heights or not?

It's a purely internal experience so what evidence would someone else ever be able to offer to conclude that the person who has that experience is wrong about it?

You are generally legally allowed to refuse to use someone's pronouns. It just makes you an asshole though. Like insisting on calling them by the wrong name or saying they come from a different city or have a different job than they do after they've asked you not to.

[kelly1mm]

63. There are posters right here on DU in this thread that dispute the shooter is non-binary

because they don't 'look' non-binary as the shooter has a beard. So some progressives even think there are non-internal experience that give others the ability to dispute someones self described gender identity.

I agree with you in that I think it is a purely internal experience and thus should be respected although in certain situations I may believe (but would not state) that I think it may be for attention and/or a phase.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I noticed he (they?) sports a beard

which is not, to my way of thinking, how someone non-binary would groom themselves. It does, I think, mean the onus is now on the lawyer to show non-binary habits or behaviour before he started murdering, or the lawyer will be shown to be full of shit and should be subject to legal penalties.

[kelly1mm]

45. Are we allowed to question someones declaration of gender identity? I know at this

point that we just have the attorney saying the shooter identifies as non-binary but lets assume the shooter does state that they are non-binary. And I don't mean 'allowed' as in against the law but rather the widespread progressive position that an individuals declaration of gender identity should be definitive.

I don't think that saying someone doesn't 'look' non-binary would normally be acceptable here on DU of in other progressive forums.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. But this is a look they chose

It's a look that about half of the world cannot choose, so not exactly "non-binary". And, you know, they murdered many people in an LGBTQ bar. The indications of them being non-binary are not strong.

[kelly1mm]

50. Perhaps I am not phrasing my question correctly. If someone states that they are non-binary

is it appropriate for you, me or anyone to say "You don't look non-binary to me so I reject your declaration of your gender identity"?

That is my question/concern. My reading and being involved in DU and other forums had led me to the understanding that ones personal declaration of gender identity was definitive. I cannot think of any other person who has identified as non-binary and/or transgender how was questioned on that status by progressives, and certainly not because they don't 'look trans/non-binary'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. I don't think "definitive" would be the right word

If someone were to suddenly say they're non-binary after a lifetime of stating they are one gender only, we can look for current behaviour, especially if there's a circumstance (like trying to get out of hate crime charges) that indicates an ulterior motive, rather than a genuine sudden life change.

[kelly1mm]

54. OK, fair enough. That does give wiggle room to bigots though to always question a persons

declaration of gender identity and say 'hey you all questioned the CO Springs shooters stated/claimed gender identity'. Not that they need our permission to do what they do ..... But even here on DU in this thread a poster is stating one of the reasons they don't believe the shooter is non-binary is that they don't 'look non-binary' in that they have a beard. Is that where we progressives are going, that someone has to look a certain way to be non-binary?

But life is messy and black and white rules are sometimes hard to fit into all circumstances - life would be so much easier if that was not the case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. What I'm saying is that choosing a binary look is not indicative of being non-binary

when most of the world has the non-binary look.

[yardwork]

48. "Are we allowed?" What is your opinion?

[kelly1mm]

53. I use 'we' as in we progressives, and 'allowed' as in was it generally acceptable in progressive

general consensus to question a persons declaration of gender identity.

My opinion is that ones declaration of gender identity should be respected in using that individual's preferred pronouns and such but I can also have doubts (that I would keep to myself about) if that person was saying that for attention or maybe a phase??? All the non-binary people I interact with I have had no questions believing their stated gender identity so I have not had to deal with the question in real life.

So whats your opinion?

[yardwork]

60. My opinion is that this game of gotcha is lame. /nt

[kelly1mm]

62. Ok thanks for adding to the discussion anyway. nt

[BlackSkimmer]

49. I didn't know non-binary people could not have facial hair.

Is there a booklet with rules or something?

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. It's quite a binary choice

because half the world can't choose it, and much of the other half doesn't choose it either.

[Zeitghost]

68. I'm far from an expert on these things

But I have seen a number of non-binary people sporting facial hair coupled with make up, long hair and "feminine" dress. Which makes sense to me for a person who identifies as neither male or female.

My daughter had a great example of Addison Rose.
https://www.instagram.com/breakthebinary/reels/

[muriel_volestrangler]

71. "Feminine" dress would be relevant in contrast to a beard

though I don't believe that has been mentioned in this case.

[Zeitghost]

72. Sometimes

And sometimes not. These things are on a spectrum, or so I'm told.

[Mad_Machine76]

78. No

Some non-binary do, some don't. When it comes to gender, the only "rules" are the ones other people impose.

[meadowlander]

57. I'm non-binary. Having a beard has nothing to do with it.

Non-binary just means you don't feel strongly female or male so you can express yourself however you want. Basically gender is a meaningless social construct that you can opt out of and do what you like/enjoy/feel comfortable with. I'm assigned female at birth. I'm considering taking testosterone for some effects but you don't get to pick and choose. I don't really want a beard because shaving seems like a pain in the ass, but if I did take it, I would likely grow a beard because it's easier to keep up with than shaving all the time.

It's just rude to tell people with gender dysphoria that they aren't non-binary or trans enough because they don't conform to your assumptions about how a non-binary or trans person should act or look. Let's be better allies than this DU.

[Sympthsical]

74. I think non-binary is being confused for androgyny a bit here

Non-binary doesn't mean splitting the difference between genders.

It simply means someone doesn't feel any particular affinity for one or the other. Facial hair is a biological function. I have a beard because, let's face it, I hate shaving. But it doesn't have anything really to do with my sense of maleness (and I am a very boringly typical cis male in identity and appearance).

You can have someone who appears very androgynous like Emma D'arcy. Then you have someone like Sam Smith who is always running around with at least heavy stubble.

People just pick and choose what feels comfortable for themselves as far as appearance (and upkeep - Smith is super hairy, and the stubble is probably just easier for them).

Long story short, non-binary is mostly how someone identifies internally. Externally, it'll vary a lot.

[gldstwmn]

40. This talking point is so irrelevant. They are absolutely capable of committing a hate crime.

End of story.

[Mad_Machine76]

77. Exactly

That's been my take on it.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

70. Now "We", meaning "the state" has to choose which gender applies ...

... to a life sentence without parole.

Or which gender prison's death row will house them for the next twenty years until they get their sentence changed to life without parole.

I'm not in favor of execution, in any case.